Daniel Williams, a 16-year-old high school basketball star, was shot and badly injured while practicing outside of his home in Buffalo, N.Y. In October, a New York appeals court did something fairly remarkable. It let Williams proceed with a lawsuit against the maker and seller of the gun that that was used to shoot him.

Letting a lawsuit go forward may not sound like a big deal, but Congress enacted a law in 2005 — under heavy lobbying from the NRA and the gun industry — that gives gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from being sued. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields the gun industry even when it makes guns that are unnecessarily dangerous and sells them recklessly.

Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings, there have been widespread calls for Congress to pass gun control laws — and it should. But there has been less talk about another important tool that could be used to reduce gun violence: lawsuits against the gun industry. Some of these suits can succeed despite the PLCAA — as the Daniel Williams case shows — and we need more of them to be filed. But if Congress wants to get serious about gun violence, it should repeal the PLCAA.

Civil lawsuits do two important things: they compensate people who are injured by the bad acts of others and they penalize people and companies for bad behavior. If a company knows it may have to pay a large amount of money if it poses an unreasonable threat to others, it will have a strong incentive to act better.

Lawsuits prod companies to make their products safer. Years ago, lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank fires led Ford to recall the troubled car and improve the design. Since then, all sorts of consumer products — from aboveground swimming pools to children’s pajamas — have been made safer by litigation or the threat of litigation.

Lawsuits also make retailers act more prudently when they sell things. “Dram shop” laws are a classic example. These laws, which allow victims of drunk drivers to sue the bar that sold the liquor, put pressure on bars and restaurants not to let people drive home drunk.

Before the PLCAA, lawsuits were starting to prod the gun industry to act more responsibly. In 2000, Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest handgun manufacturer, agreed to a variety of safety conditions to end lawsuits that threatened to put it in bankruptcy. Among other things, Smith & Wesson agreed to put a second, hidden set of serial numbers on all of its new guns to make it harder for criminals to scratch away the identifying markings.

But the PLCAA took away the pressure to work on safety. Protected against lawsuits, gun manufacturers have less incentive to develop improved technology for locking guns when they are not in use and gun dealers have less reason to worry about whether the person they are selling a firearm to will use it to commit a crime.

The PLCAA contains exceptions that allow lawsuits in some cases — and gun control advocates and victims of gun violence should bring more suits that take advantage of these exceptions. One of the biggest exceptions is a provision that allows gun makers and sellers to be held liable when they know they are breaking a federal or state law. This is the one the New York appeals court relied on in allowing Daniel Williams’ suit to proceed. Williams is suing the Ohio seller who sold the firearm used to shoot him. He is alleging that the seller had reason to know that the buyers were gun traffickers who would turn around and resell the guns they bought on the criminal market.

Lawsuits that use PLCAA loopholes to hold the gun industry accountable are important, but they are not enough. We are hearing a lot about gun rights these days — including from the Supreme Court, which has greatly expanded the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But with rights come responsibilities. Congress should repeal the PLCAA and require the gun industry to act according to the same standards of responsibility and safety as the rest of us.

The author does not seem to grasp that the "loopholes" he describes are just cases where there is actual liability involved. That's the way it is with guns as with any other product. The law was necessary to protect the industry from predatory and frivolous lawsuits that have nothing to do with liability - and everything to do with the gun control/prohibitionist agenda.

If you want the victims of gun crime to be able to sue the gun makers for damages, then let us also allow the victims of drunk driving accidents to sue the car makers and distilleries as well. While we are at it, revoke the special protection granted to vaccine makers that was passed as part of the Homeland Security Act so that people who are actually harmed by poorly made vaccines can sue the pharmaceutical companies. And, given that at least 90% of these mass shootings were committed by people either on or withdrawing from prescription anti-depressants, the victims of those shootings should be allowed to sue the pharmaceutical companies as well. Let's sue the makers of kitchen cutlery for every stabbing death. Let's sue the makers of sporting equipment for every victim beaten to death with a baseball bat, and tool companies for making the hammers used on bludgeoning deaths as well. The family of everyone who dies by electrocution should be allowed to sue the electric company. The family of everyone who dies in a fall should be allowed to sue the makers of ladders and staircases. The family of everyone who commits suicide by hanging should be allowed to sue the rope companies.

People are just up in arms about 20 innocent children being mercilessly murdered. Just the same as they were with Columbine, Aurora, VT and numerous other mass shootings. When you look at the cold hard numbers, mass shootings account for a very low percentage of shooting deaths in this country. FBI stats show that in 2011 there were over 10000 murders, 8500 of which were by firearm. 6200 of those firearm murders were by handgun. That is 73%!!!!! The problem is NOT so called "assault weapons". The problem is NOT magazine capacity. You want proof? Look at the Luby massacre in Texas back in 1991. That killer didnt use an "assault weapon", and he was able to kill 23 and wound another 27. The Columbine shooters didnt use "assault weapons". Neither did the VT shooter or the man that shot Gabrielle Giffords. Now he used a Glock pistol with a 33 round magazine, but only killed 6 and wounded 13. The Luby shooter used standard magazines and killed and wounded more so magazine size makes NO DIFFERENCE!!

Mass shootings get lots of media attention because of the single incident body count. What about the thousands of others? The problem with the mass shootings is that majority of the shooters have mental illnesses!!! The current NICS (National Instant Check System) does not provide a way for doctors that have patients that are a danger to be put on a "no firearm" list. Some doctors also hide behind "doctor patient confidentiality". The NRA agrees, and wants a way to make sure every person who has been committed, and or treated and considered a danger to be blocked from purchasing firearms. Every law abiding gun owner I know vehemently agrees.

Dont believe everything you, see, hear, or read. Do your own research and discover the truth that the mainstream media does not always tell you. Most of the time the media will twist, and only tell you some truths because they sensationalize stories for better ratings. Remember that reporters and journalists are just people too. They have their opinions and are more than likely biased rather than open minded.

In the Arms Race article under spotlight, Time claims that the gun homicide rate is 3.2% so in 10 years 32% of the population is killed by guns and none of us live past 35 or so. I think what they meant to say was 3.2 homicides per 100,000 population. They have their decimal off by 5 places! Sloppy Work.

We already have a way of dealing with dangerous objects. What do we do with the thing that kills more citizens than anything else? We register cars and demand people to have a license and last but not least, we demand liability insurance. Do the same with guns.

Using the author's same "logic" (or lack thereof), we should sue HIM, all school districts, and the Federal Government for CREATING gun free zones that ALLOWED the Sandy shootings to occur. Make Gun Free Zones prohibitively expensive via lawsuits and forced insurance since anti's can't seem to understand the real world.

Lawsuits against gun manufacturers were fought against by the NRA and other organizations because they were being used to target the manufacturers of legal firearms that were misused by people. Unlike the Ford Pinto that led to deaths through defects in the design and manufacturing process, the guns worked as intended without being defective but were used negligently. By Mr. Cohen's reasoning, alcohol manufacturers such as Anheuser Busch should be sued in drunk driving cases. Before someone throughs out cigarettes as an example, the Government regulated them and provided them for free to armed forces during Korea and Vietnam, so the lawsuits against tobacco companies were a farce as the Government was responsible as well. In addition no one was forced to smoke, they did so at their own risk. Like it or not, semi-auto firearms are the NRA, yet do not join because they claim we do not represent their interests. Last time I checked the NRA goes far beyond gun safety for youths, they also train law enforcement and security guards. They also publish American Hunter, a magazine for members and get involved with legislation to promote and further hunting. Are 30 round magazines needed for hunting? No, but the NRA's primary goal is to preserve our second amendment rights which have everything to do with preventing oppression from our government as well as other governments. For those who need a history lesson a black powder musket was the so called assault rifle during the revolutionary war and citizens owned the same firearm as the army. The semi-auto firearms that are deemed assault rifles are not even close (other than appearance) to what is being used on current battlefields. In summary, if you want your own organization for hunting rights or what you deem as common sense gun control, then go for it. Just don't expect those who believe in the constitution to support you. And I seriously need to understand common sense gun control. Do you really expect any gun owner to believe that a shooter with 10 or 15 round magazines would have killed less people? If so please look up VA tech shooting which was conducted with two handguns; no so called assault rifle. Your primary mission is to enact meaningless gun control measures to whittle away at our rights while achieving no results. That is why organizations such as the NRA and GOA will continue to thrive and gain members. I am proud to be a member of the NRA .

I grew up in the mountians of PA and own a few guns i hear my uncles and cousins all yelling about bans how they wont let the govt take their guns away the problem is its not their guns the govt wants so they are concerned for no reason at all

I do not see the federal govt banning the sale and use of a .30 06 or a .30.30 nor would i approve of it

however i do feel that a weapon designed to fire more than one round without requiring the target should have federal regs attached.

the govt is not going to ban my dad from buying a new 12 gauge pump or that .50 flintlock muzzelloader kit he is building

ban the commerical sale of military style weapons i would leave handguns alone (focus on the bad guys here not the guns)

please keep the focus here(weapons ban) on what we are trying to stop which is the mass shootings and change the focus of the police from drugs to violent crime

"Locking a gun" is the individuals responsibility, not the manufacturer's. That's like saying car manufacturers should include ways to keep drunk people from driving their vehicles. Or companies that produce potentially poisonous chemicals should insure no one ever ingests them. How about gas companies making sure their gas is never set on fire to keep people from getting burned. Your lack of knowledge of guns shows through in your writings and personal responsibility goes a long way, it's just that Americans and people like you think it should not exist when that is the only and real problem.

Congress should make it legal for individuals to sue companies for selling a product to a person that commits a crime? Because lawsuits in this country have worked so wonderfully for us. Where would it stop? Using the basic idea stated in this article, a victim could potentially sue McDonalds if the perpetrator ate there before committing the crime....who knows they might have provided bad customer service to the criminal which made him angry thus committing whatever crime against his/her chosen victim (I could come up with scenarios all day!). More laws and regulations are not going to make crime stop, they are not going to make every person "good", and they won't stop disaster. Imposing regulations on everyone for a few peoples obviously terrible decisions is not a way to fix a problem, it's a way to band aid the problem, to sweep it under the rug and hope no one looks under there.

Time Magazine argues that gun manufacturers should be sued for the crimescommitted with guns they manufacture. In other news, Time argues thatcar makers and whiskey distillers should be sued for drunk drivingdeaths, knife makers should be sued for stabbing deaths, skateboardmanufacturers should have to pay for skateboard accidents. Oh, wait,that would require consistency.

Guns are pieces of machinery designed to kill something. Suing the gun company if someone is shot is about the dumbest thing on the face of the planet. However, it is smart from a gun control standpoint in that it forces the gun companies to have to spend lots of money defending themselves because of a little-known fact that the gun control people do not tell to the general public, which is that the gun manufacturing industry is actually pretty tiny. It does not finance the NRA and so forth the way they make people think it does, as it's too small to have that kind of influence. As such, it is excellent for suing to try to just drive it out of business.

This concept I disagree. My table saw is very dangerous. It is a proven fact that many are hurt by this machine. So should I sue the maker because I either missuse the machine or use the machine correctly by also hurt although the manufactor made the saw correctly? No as long as the saw meets industry standards then it is a good saw and the manufactor should not be held responsible. I purchased the saw with no required training or certification and at my own risk.

Banning people who would kill and psychos who would figure out devious ways to kill is beyond my pathetic understanding of the human condition. I'll leave that up to you social scientists, who before you become lawyers seem to have an answer for everything.

My job for more than a decade is to protect people from violent crime, including gun-related crimes. I use a firearm to carryout my job. I'm quite familiar with criminals, many of which carry firearms. I'll be the first to tell you most criminals don't obtain firearms in a legal fashion. I've seen hundreds of convicted felons arrested for having a firearrm, and then released after a very short sentence, if any. As much as I would love to see these guys serve long sentences, I understand that the prison system is already overflowing, and new prisons mean higher taxes. This problem is far too complex to simply say, "Ban Guns" or "Make more gun control laws." There's more than enough gun control laws on the books now, we need to get serious about enforcing laws we have today. Regardless, criminals by nature do not obey laws. It's horrible that people die at the hands of a madman with a firearm, however, lets remember that there is no easy fix to this problem. You may end up doing more bad than good.

Twenty mothers cried through the worst Christmas of their lives in Newtown. But the selfish paranoid gun freaks and rightwing scum only have one thought: 'Bamy gonna get their guns. I hope they all burn in hell with Wayne LaDerrier.

@DavidBulinski Agreed. We need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Which is why we need to do universal background checks on all sales and transfers, both commercial and private. We need to file the same form 4473's we file on new sales. It makes no sense whatsoever to have checks not apply to about 40% of all sales.

I think we also need to increase civil and criminal liability for owners or purchasers of weapons used in criminal acts. This acts as incentive for owners to secure weaponry, incentive not to buy weapons for "friends" or for resale, and incentive to comply with the private sale requirements.

Columbine happened with guns purchased through private sales and through guns legally purchased through straw sales. In Aurora the shooter bought extended round magazines and ammunition online. Both used assault weapons and ammo you could obtain from highly secure sources like WalMart.

And the majority of guns used by criminals come from stolen weapons and by guns obtained through the private sale/gun show loophole.

There's probably a lot more we can do, but those are the two best things we can do to dry up the supply of weapons to those who should not have them.

I know I know.....I was completely off subject, but this whole thing just irks me to no end. Suing a gun manufacturer for someone improperly using their product is like suing a car maker for someone killing someone else in an accident. Or someone suing Louisville Slugger for me beating someone to death with one of their bats. Absolutely ridiculous!!!!!

People like you are what is wrong with this country. You think the constitution guarantees your right to shoot 30 rounds without reloading. You think the constitution starts and ends with your right to bear arms. (I bet you'd be totally OK with seeing the separation of church and state go away, am I right?) You think dead babies are a perfectly acceptable price to pay so you can own your arsenal. Well guess what? You may love your guns more than you love your children, but some of us actually care about our kids and would be willing to make some sacrifices for them. Too bad the sacrifice your kind is most comfortable with is the lives of other people's children.

@chorst294 First of all your statement that there are more than enough gun control laws on the books now is criminally negligent, patently absurd and basically an outrageous lie. Your meandering statements about too many people in jail end up in enforcing the laws that we have is just more Republican code words with their foolhardy solutions. There are NOT enough gun control laws and the NRA works every way and every day to circumvent every common sense approach to guns and gun safety. They are fanatics and criminal and belong in jail. If you are one of them you belong in jail as well.

You are correct in one thing and one thing only. It is a complex problem. But that does not mean that common sense laws and rejection of those that oppose them should not be done and done now.

@chorst294 I accept that the solution, or solutions, may not be easy. Regardless, the fact that they're difficult is not sufficient reason to avoid doing anything at all.

After the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech shootings that killed 32 people: “The NRA joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.”

After the Feb. 14, 2008, shootings at Northern Illinois University that killed six, the NRA said: “We think it is poor form for a politician or a special interest group to try to push a legislative agenda on the back of any tragedy. Now is the time for the Northern Illinois University community to grieve and to heal. We believe there is adequate time down the road to debate policy and politics."

After the April 3, 2009, massacre at a Binghamton, N.Y., immigration center that killed 13: “Now is not the time to debate politics or discuss policy. It's time for the families and communities to grieve.”

After the Jan. 8, 2011, shooting spree that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six: “At this time, anything other than prayers for the victims and their families would be inappropriate.”

After the July 20, 2012, massacre at an Aurora, Colo., theater that left 12 dead and 58 wounded: “We believe that now is the time for families to grieve and for the community to heal. There will be an appropriate time down the road to engage in political and policy discussions.”

According to the NRA, the “appropriate time” never arrives.

Sorry, but I, and apparently many others, have had enough. The time is now.

@cybervigilante crazy people and criminals don't obey the law. Gun ban laws only push these people to buy from the black market, and prevents law abiding citizens from carrying guns. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

@hmlongThe problem is that by making every gun sale applicable to the NICS check that the current system would become overloaded. Add in ammo purchases and the approvals would be backlogged for months.

I agree with harsher penalties for straw purchasers and gun owners who did not secure firearms properly, and they ended up stolen.

The weapons the Columbine shooters used were NOT so called "assault weapons". Look it up. Dylan -- Intratec TEC-DC9 (9-mm semi-automatic handgun), Savage 311-D 12-gauge
double-barrel shotgun. Eric -- 10-shot Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle, Savage-Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump shotgun. Now Dylan had high cap magazines for his Tec-9, and fired 55 rounds from that weapon. Eric on the other hand had 13 ten round magazines for his 9mm rifle and he fired 96 rounds. High cap magazines make NO difference!!! And remember, the 1994 weapon and magazine ban was in place when Columbine happened. It had NO EFFECT whatsoever!!!!!

The Aurora shooters doctor should have had an avenue to report him to NICS rather than to some campus cop who did nothing. Alot of doctors hide behind doctor patient confidentiality because they are afraid that if they would report someone as mentally unstable that, that person would come back and do them harm. She made the effort, but there was no clear way for her to report him so that he could not get his hands on firearms.

As far as online purchases go. When I buy ammo online I have to provide faxed copies of my DL, front and back. My credit card address must match my DL and can only be shipped to that address. If I buy ammo at Walmart or any other location all they want to see is my DL. So I have to provide more info and leave a longer paper trail when I buy ammo online.

Stating that part of the majority of guns that criminals get is through the "gun show loophole" isnt justified. There is no direct correlation between criminals and gun shows. In fact most gun show dealers keep detailed records of who they got the firearms from, and who they sold them to. They dont want to go to federal prison.

@JohnLubeck@chorst294Can we sue the government for leaving guns in Vietnam? My father was on a bust that had 100's of them. They also had weapons that were sold to militaries in South America. Look to see how many laws there are! Even this crap about gun show loopholes is smoke and mirrors. Unless you are a private person selling your guns you have to do a background check. Very few of the guns are sold privately.

Laws that forbid the carrying ofarms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commitcrimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for theassailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for anunarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Wow John, those with your confrontational attitude is probably why most proprosed gun control laws aren't passed. I figured I would have a civil conversation or debate. But since you're quick to point out perceived flaws in my ideas, I would love to hear your solutions?? What would you do to solve this problem?

1) No one is talking a gun ban. The NRA is the only one talking that to scare people.

2) What is being discussed is these insane thirty round clips and Rambo rifles. I know real hunters. They Pride themselves on how Few bullets they use and are not too lazy to reload. They don't need a thirty round clip. And you don't need a Rambo rifle for self defense. They're too hard to get to. A pistol is what is needed.

3) The NRA, an arm of the Manufacturers and so-bribed, has distorted the Second Amendment, which wasn't for all weapons everywhere. Recently, the NRA has supported gun rights for felons and the right to shoot policemen. The NRA has GONE INSANE. They know NO limits, even though Everything in society has limits. You can't chug whiskey and drive but if the NRA was paid off by the whiskey makers they'd bribe Congress to pass a law that you could.

4) I don't recall One time when an armed citizen stopped one of these massacres. It just doesn't happen. That's Wild West bullcrap. BTW, revolvers won the West. It if was good enough for Wyatt Earp it's good enough for me.

But I know a reasonable argument won't impress a mindless boob so just go on repeating Wayne's lying misdirection by a man who really doesn't care about all t hose grieving mothers. He proved that by his Insane support for felon-guns and shooting cops. Yeah, sure, your little Rambo Rifle is going to stop the Marines when 'Bamy comes to git yore gun and your Tinfoil Hat. Please don't bother another mindless regurgitation of Wayne or Rush. I'm done bothering with drooling idiots.

@chorst294@Heian@JohnLubeck I don't think sensible and reasonable mean what you think they mean. You're simply giving the appearance of being open-minded by your statement that you support "sensible" gun control, but then turn around and say there are no suggestions that sound like they would work.

@Heian@chorst294@JohnLubeck I don't want to do nothing. in fact, I support sensible gun control. I haven't heard too many suggestions that sound like they would work. the 1994 Bill did absolutely nothing to curb violent crime. I just wonder what solutions you guys think might work. just because people don't agree with what has been suggested.so far, doesn't mean they support no action.

@chorst294@JohnLubeck Your thoughts were, it is a hard problem to fix, so let's not try. Indecisive people who make excuses for loose gun control are exactly why most proposed gun control laws aren't passed.

@GordonS.Dempseyii@hmlong@chorst294 According to a USA Today/Gallup poll recently released, 58% of US citizens are now in favor of stricter gun laws. That's a 14-point jump from last year.

Of those surveyed, 92% of Americans want background checks for buyers at gun shows and 62% want to ban magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, which have played a frequent role in mass shootings.

Sorry, but I live in the US, which is a democracy and where the wishes of the majority rule.

And guess what? I grew up with guns. I voted Democratic. I have a Glock. I spent time in the Army. I'm pro-choice.

And I've been posting comments not about weapons bans, but on closing gun show and private sale loopholes, putting semi-auto weapons and HC magazines, under Title 2 FFL, and increasing liabilities on owners whose weapons are subsequently used in criminal acts.

I don't want to steal all the guns. I do, however, want to make it harder for criminals and the disturbed to obtain weapons, to make sure those who carry are properly trained, and to work on making sure stored weapons are safely secured.

It is about We the People having weapons equal to military to prevent tyranny foreign and domestic.

You can choose to abdicate your responsibility to the cause of liberty--

but the 2nd Amendment spells out that neither you nor the govt. has the right to infringe upon the Rights of those will stand for Freedom & Liberty.

A free people ought not only to bearmed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition tomaintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them,which would include their own government.